Re: [syzbot ci] Re: net: Support per-netns device unregistration

From: syzbot ci <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:45:10 -0700
> syzbot ci has tested the following series
> 
> [v1] net: Support per-netns device unregistration
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 01/14] rtnetlink: Lock sock_net(skb->sk) in rtnl_newlink().
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 02/14] rtnetlink: Call unregister_netdevice_many() only once in rtnl_link_unregister().
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 03/14] rtnetlink: Add per-netns rtnl_work.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 04/14] net: Wrap default_device_exit_net() with __rtnl_net_lock().
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 05/14] net: Hold __rtnl_net_lock() in netdev_wait_allrefs_any().
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 06/14] net: Add per-netns netdev unregistration infra.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 07/14] net: Call unregister_netdevice_many() per netns.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 08/14] veth: Support per-netns device unregistration.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 09/14] bareudp: Protect bareudp_list with mutex.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 10/14] bareudp: Support per-netns netdev unregistration.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 11/14] ipvlan: Convert ipvl_port.count to refcount_t.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 12/14] ipvlan: Synchronise ipvlan_init() and ipvlan_uninit() for the same lower dev.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 13/14] ipvlan: Protect ipvl_port.ipvlans with mutex.
> * [PATCH v1 net-next 14/14] ipvlan: Support per-netns netdev unregistration.
> 
> and found the following issue:
> possible deadlock in __dev_change_net_namespace
> 
> Full report is available here:
> https://ci.syzbot.org/series/a744b257-d741-4780-8a53-f156b2a7afc9
> 
> ***
> 
> possible deadlock in __dev_change_net_namespace
> 
> tree:      net-next
> URL:       https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git
> base:      d6e81529749190123aa0040626c7e5dbc20fdc9a
> arch:      amd64
> compiler:  Debian clang version 22.1.6 (++20260514074242+fc4aad7b5db3-1~exp1~20260514074407.73), Debian LLD 22.1.6
> config:    https://ci.syzbot.org/builds/243cd0ec-28f9-4d21-8f16-3d2fbad8388d/config
> syz repro: https://ci.syzbot.org/findings/a8a0740d-fdec-4a20-9aa5-7cb955707913/syz_repro
> 
> veth0_macvtap: left promiscuous mode
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> syz.1.18/5814 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffffffff9a9b0418 (&net->dev_unreg_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:342 [inline]
> ffffffff9a9b0418 (&net->dev_unreg_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unregister_netdevice_move_net net/core/dev.c:-1 [inline]
> ffffffff9a9b0418 (&net->dev_unreg_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __dev_change_net_namespace+0x1479/0x2200 net/core/dev.c:12768
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff88810b6cf8d8 (&net->dev_unreg_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:342 [inline]
> ffff88810b6cf8d8 (&net->dev_unreg_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unregister_netdevice_move_net net/core/dev.c:-1 [inline]
> ffff88810b6cf8d8 (&net->dev_unreg_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __dev_change_net_namespace+0x146a/0x2200 net/core/dev.c:12768
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0
>        ----
>   lock(&net->dev_unreg_lock);
>   lock(&net->dev_unreg_lock);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
>  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

Oh right, I'll squash this to patch 6.

---8<---
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 57fb4741d0ac..fcd58c2aa030 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -12574,10 +12574,10 @@ static void unregister_netdevice_move_net(struct net *net_old,
 {
 	if (net_old > net) {
 		spin_lock(&net->dev_unreg_lock);
-		spin_lock(&net_old->dev_unreg_lock);
+		spin_lock_nested(&net_old->dev_unreg_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 	} else {
 		spin_lock(&net_old->dev_unreg_lock);
-		spin_lock(&net->dev_unreg_lock);
+		spin_lock_nested(&net->dev_unreg_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 	}
 
 	if (!list_empty(&dev->unreg_list_net)) {
---8<---